Search

The vast majority of 401(k) plan participants want access to investments that match their personal values, yet a small fraction of plans offer those types of investments. The culprit for the existing misalignment has been unstable regulation, which has discouraged plan fiduciaries from including some categories of investments, such as sustainable investments, on 401(k) plan menus. In late 2022, the Department of Labor issued guidance that for the first time explicitly states that fiduciaries do not violate their duty of loyalty by considering participant preferences when making investment-related decisions. This Article makes two unique contributions. First, it evaluates the research on participant preferences for sustainable investments. Second, it provides a framework that fiduciaries can use to assess and consider those preferences while simultaneously fulfilling their duties of loyalty and prudence. If fiduciaries adopt the framework developed in this Article, it could be a triple win. Data indicate, and experts believe, that employees will save more in their 401(k) plans if they have access to investments that support their personal values. An increase in retirement savings would help close the substantial pension gap that exists, particularly for young employees and women who are particularly vulnerable to under saving. Companies will benefit if employees place greater value on their 401(k) plans. And, the world would benefit from increased assets flowing to sustainable investments at a time when climate and social sustainability are close to or in crisis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The duty of loyalty is a core duty under the legal framework for directors' duties. The concept as borrowed by China originates from the UK and has further developed into many variations across common law jurisdictions. The different legal environments and development history lead to divergences in elaborating the duty in common law jurisdictions. The divergences can provide useful references for countries that have adopted and intend to improve the duty so as to enrich the content of the duty and plug any gaps. Chinese company law is still struggling to deal with the abstract nature of the duty, its scope of application and the test to apply in determining whether it has been breached. In practice, the Chinese judiciary is attempting to understand the duty. Nonetheless, their efforts are not entirely successful because the law omits several core aspects of the duty: the test for determining whether the duty has been breached, the ability to contract out of the duty and an applicable definition or understanding of a conflict of interest. The common law literature can be used as a starting point to sketch out a reasonable structure for the design of a better duty of loyalty in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After over two decades of development, Chinese statutory directorial duties have evolved into two segments: the duty of care and the duty of loyalty. However, the duty of care is still difficult to apply. While an abstract and vague drafting style is a common characteristic of Chinese legislation, a survey of existing Chinese laws and administrative rules should assist in clarifying the duty of care requirements expected of directors. Considering the increasing significance of judicial precedents and the exemplary function of administrative sanctions, analysing recent duty of care cases is conducive to supplementing further information and deciphering myths surrounding the application of the duty of care mechanism in China. However, this analysis demonstrates that there are inconsistencies in the standards of care applied by courts and by the China Securities Regulatory Commission. The article finds that a clearer statutory standard of care should be introduced into the People's Republic of China Company Law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]